Some cartoonist can make big bucks if he can capture the images of all the folks Obama has thrown under the bus...Ayers, Rev. Wright, Pfleger, this guy Sergant, Van Jones, his own granny, CIA agents, surgeons, post office workers, talk radio, the 24 hour news cycle, bitter clingers, General McChrystal, all of America prior to January 20, 2009.....

Again, there is the implicit assumption here that Obama is particularly prone to dismissing his appointees. More Obama appointees have left or been fired then in any other administration. . . or else this post has no point, right?

Anyway, Bush was wiser than Obama when it came to basic leadership ability. His administration got stuff done, and Obama's is still less than half staffed, and wasting its time with useless truther or propaganda garbage.

Policy is a Congressional thing, so it's really weird that Obama basically never did anything legislative when he was a legislator, and now that he's not, he doesn't want to administrate his administration... he wants to legislate.

It's not good for the NEA that they were abused this way. If you care about art, you have to agree Obama failed to do his job.

In any case, traditionally in this country the civil services have been the spoils of war after elections. Not that that's a great thing, but here we have had a big party turnover after 8 years. Obama appointed a Republican to head the NEA, by the way. That was probably the appointment he paid attention to. Him being the president and all, maybe he delegates the hiring of low level staffers?

But this is why Obama's various attempts to reach out to Republicans and include any in the administration-- minus Bob Gates, who is a national treasure-- seem like they were for naught. I mean, freeze out all Republicans, don't work with them at all, because the result is the same in either case.

So yeah, my beef with the Obama administration is its prudence and centrism. That's why it's so hard to square all these wackjobs weeping their tears about socialism and "Oh my God! He is Chavez!"

Some cartoonist can make big bucks if he can capture the images of all the folks Obama has thrown under the bus...Ayers, Rev. Wright, Pfleger, this guy Sergant, Van Jones, his own granny, CIA agents, surgeons, post office workers, talk radio, the 24 hour news cycle, bitter clingers, General McChrystal, all of America prior to January 20, 2009.....

Sounds like the Road to Perdition heck I think that was even set in Chicago.

Obama is simply a man who has been a beneficiary of affirmative action. Until now, he's never had to have a thought, or policy that would work. Health care? Let's ask Michelle, she worked at a hospital and made some good money. Doing what? That's what this is all about. And nothing more. He can't govern. His days of voting present are over. He doesn't know what to say. He has no policy, or friends to rely on. His friends are as flawed as himself.

Again. . . no one addresses the substantive claim: Is Obama particularly bad in this respect?

His transition certainly was the most incompetently managed that I can remember. Clinton, you'll recall, was supposed to have had a chaotic and disorganised transition, with one high profile nomination withdrawn because of nanny issues (Zoe Baird), and a second withdrawn because of optics (Kimba Wood), rather than actual violations of the law. Obama . . . I mean, how many were there? Richardson was named, then withdrawn before he could even be nominated because of a political corruption scandal. Daschle named and withdrawn because of a tax scandal. Gregg withdrew after he was named because he realised he couldn't go along with the Democrats' agenda. Nancy Killefer was another withdrawal.

So that's at least four transition nomination screw-ups, objectively far worse than Clinton (on the merits of the reasons for withdrawal too, mind, not just the raw number). Bush I and Bush II had one transition nomination failure each (Tower and Chavez respectively). I think Reagan had none.

But of course, the utter disorganization of the Obama transition team wasn't limited to the cabinet nomination process. It extended to other posts too. Gen. Anthony Zinni, for example, was informed he was the President's pick for ambassador to Iraq (some news reports actually indicated that the President himself called him with congratulations), but shortly after, the pick was rescinded in favor of Christopher Hill. There were a handful of other instances of public screw-ups, I recall, and I'm sure there were countless others that never became public.

I have no idea. In my experience political appointees are coming and going all the time.

Does this really mean that Obama is an incompetent administrator?

If you recall, throughout November, December, and January, news reports were filled with pablum about how cool and professional and organised the Obama transition team was. In fact, they seem to have spent more time congratulating themselves about having the smoothest and most professional transition team in history than actually going about the boring business of vetting their nominees.

What we're getting here is the tail end of that transition team's screw-ups. I hope. Or there could be lots yet to come, I suppose. It wouldn't surprise me, frankly.

I bet not a single one of you can tell me. I certainly don't know.

I dunno. The evidence of the transition strongly suggests that Obama was an exceptionally poor administrator back then. But in fairness, he'd never run anything in his life at that point -- he's been making his way up the learning curve, and I'm sure he'd do a much better job now if he got a do-over. Experience is the best teacher, after all, and it's something he had absolutely none of.

Just consider that if Obama resigns, then Biden becomes Prez and Pelosi then becomes the Heiress Apparent. No fair in those circumstances on betting on Biden's ability to last out the remainder of that term.

I actually think FLS may be on about the right track with this. A few sop appointments to the hard left. They screw up, the President tosses them under the bus ASAP before the scandal can grow real legs. The President tells the left, hey, I put in the people you wanted, and they screwed up. Don't blame me, I tried to push your agenda, your folks couldn't handle it.

Meanwhile, he portrays himself as the victim of GOP attacks on people who really didn't do anything so terribly wrong, but hey, look, he was willing to dismiss anybody with any hint of impropriety. So when the evidence starts mounting against the real players in the administration, they've been partly inoculated against attack. The President didn't defend those other folks, because he saw there may have been some small merit to the claims, so when he defends THESE guys, he must be really convinced of their innocence.

You appear not to have understood my point. My point is that Van Jones et al. are a result of the same basic failure of competence that resulted in the problems with the nominations of Richardson (Secretary of Commerce) and Daschle (Secretary of Health).

Obama's team's incompetence led to big problems (which were caught early, during the transition), and to small problems, which are trickling out now. But they all point back to the same root cause, which is an amateurish incompetence.

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

You're ignoring Michelle. I think she kind of enjoys living in the White House and I don't think she's ready to go back to Chicago just yet.

Traditionally, however, Michelle cannot ascend to the Senate as long as her husband is President, nor give hard-hitting political speeches, write op-eds, join a Democratic think tank, etc. She may be chomping at the bit to get away from the White House gardening photo-ops. Maybe she'd actually welcome a resignation.

Just consider that if Obama resigns, then Biden becomes Prez and Pelosi then becomes the Heiress Apparent. No fair in those circumstances on betting on Biden's ability to last out the remainder of that term.

For a long time, I figured that the biggest thing keeping Obama safe was having Biden as VP. Kind of like Cheney with Bush(43), only in reverse. Everyone was so petrified about Cheney in the White House, that the wackos never tried for Bush. (Or, just maybe the Secret Service has gotten so good that real threats are neutralized much earlier).

But now? I would almost love for Biden to serve out the rest of Obama's term. He keeps saying stuff that makes you think that he really isn't turned on by all the liberal wacko stuff his boss is doing. And the Bidenisms would be much more entertaining than the Bushisms ever were.

No, I don't want it to happen, but Biden looks more and more harmless, in comparison to Obama.

The amazing Mr Obama is not that interested in the American form of government except as his stepping stone to a place that is still awash in oil money. So cut him some slack. He has tried to warn us that we are old tired people with a Ponzi scheme for pension and health care benefits that will be paid in the New Currency of international trade, or in nothing.

In addition to all the nominees or appointees who were dumped, the quality of some of those who got top jobs is debatable too:

- Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, who has made his friends at his former firm wealthy.

- Attorney General gained notoriety at the end of the Clinton Administration by getting Marc Rich a pardon in trade for millions of dollars for the Clintons. More recently, he has dropped corruption charges of one type or another against political allies, while allowing inspectors generals to be canned for doing their jobs. And has put a very radicalized crew at the top at Justice, including a woman who sued our government on behalf of terrorists is now in charge of their detention at GitMo.

- I actually think that Hillary is doing ok at State - except that she has been pretty much neutered by all the Czars that Obama has appointed.

Which brings us to another example of his incompetence as a manager - the appointment of all those czars. Glenn Reynolds and others have had a field day trying to keep them straight.

But having earned an MBA years ago, and having taken the requisite management classes to get it, I can pretty much assure you that this is NOT the way to run such a big organization. For one thing, they blur the lines of power, without really changing the lines of responsibility. So, you have cabinet secretaries who are responsible for what their departments do and accomplish, and you have czars interfering with that, with no accountability. It is one thing, when there are just a couple of them in high profile positions, but now there are dozens and dozens of them, all running around with their own mandates, many of which conflict with each others, and definitely with those of the secretaries of the departments they are screwing up.

So, my prediction is that historians are going to look back and judge this Administration as one of the worst run since FDR, and Bush (43)'s one of the best run.

Seriously, people, whatever our political difference may be, can we at least all agree to keep hipsters out of the government?"

best comment of the day!

i mean look at this fucking hipster.... this person was appointed to government position by the president of the united states. hes wearing a fucking terror scarf. how did bearded williamsburg fucking hipsters get their pumas in the door of our federal government??

what i want to know is how many other hipsters have been embedded into the federal government by the obama administration. they could be anywhere, even in camouflage. a loose fitting suit can even hide american apparel pink underwear and star tattoos and skinny jeans with holes. hell they might even have shaved their ironic beards and mustachs. its all part of the plan, a fifth column of douchebags!!

I honestly don't care that he may have violated the Hatch Act. What bothers me is that a walking fucktard cliche like Sargent got within whispering distance of the most powerful man in the world. It makes me weep for my country, it does.

What I want to know is why didn't the Secret Service beat the piss out of him on general principle? How could any rational human being stand within arm's length of that dude and resist the urge to punch him repeatedly in the face?

Seriously, unless this great nation of ours sees a pressing need for the expertise of a "PBR czar", we're all going to have to remain vigilant to keep hipster douchebags from the levers of power.

What Bruce said about confusing lines of authority and responsibility are pretty basic things. But honestly, isn't that a common touchy-feelie way to function these days? I can't express how many times I've had a responsibility/authority discussion on one subject or another, usually schooling or parenting, to explain that the two things MUST go together.

But there are a whole lot of ways we try, in our culture, to take away authority and maintain responsibility. It doesn't ever work... and it's not just within businesses and the work-world that this is true.

Taking what doesn't work from modern social orthodoxy and applying it to the management of a huge business is where the supposedly unnecessary "executive experience" comes in.

And for Phos I'd like to say... the answer to your question is "Yes."

"I suppose we all prefer the Bush model: never force a man out!

9/11 happens? The "slamdunk" WMD fail to materialize? Give George Tenet a Medal Of Whatever.

The Iraq invasion is poorly planned? An occupation is specifically NOT planned for? Iraq turns into a quagmire? Your own party begs you to make changes in the face of an upcomig election?

Nope. . . stay the course. Keep Rumsfeld, no matter what.

That's how it's done!"

Bush *may* have kept people longer than he should have but even that is not a given. This is a pretty simple leadership principle... loyalty top-down.

It might blow your mind, but Bush's loyalty toward Rumsfeild *worked* for him with the military. Everyone knew that they had the man at the very top watching their backs.

The same dynamic is true of any employee. Secure employees are more effective than ones who are afraid that one wrong move will get them fired.

I suppose a person fully committed to the idea that Obama can do no wrong will find a way to spin his complete lack of top-down loyalty as responsiveness to criticism. But it's really easy to be responsive of criticism of someone other than himself and he just looks like the complete naif that he is when it comes to hiring, management structures, and leadership principles.

No one in the administration, no public employee, no military person, has any reason whatsoever to trust that their boss has their back. And as those things tend to go... it can only be reciprocated.

I read an article about Pabst Blue Ribbon in the Wall Street Journal awhile back. Basically, it was some bigwig saying that he was happy that hipster douchebags had mysteriously come to love the product but he recognized the need to remain underexposed, lest the hipster douchebags leave his product in the same droves in which they came for some other shitty beer.

Tea drops? Norris/Palin? garage, would you like to unpack that? (Assuming it even has a meaning - my first thought is that perhaps you have been drinking heavily this evening.)

As for daubiere's fears:"what i want to know is how many other hipsters have been embedded into the federal government by the obama administration."Fortunately, there is a foolproof hipster-detection method which does not rely on clothing, visible body decorations, or beer. Simply ask the suspected hipster to define "irony". Hipsters use the word all the time, but never correctly.

I'm starting to think that Obama's is the first Hipster Presidency. So much fits when you think of it that way.

Think of all the marginal and obscure indie rock bands that must be selling out the 9:30 Club these days.Is that place still in business? I'd have thought my brother's band would have run it into the ground 20 years ago.

@Old Grouchy - Um no, Pelosi doesn't. The Speaker only ascends to the Presidency if both the POTUS and VP die or are incapacitated.

Should VP Biden ascend to the Presidency he would nominate a VP and both houses of Congress would confirm the appointment.

Following Kennedy's assassination Congress passed and the states quickly ratified the Twenty fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 2 of which permits the President to nominate a Vice President should the Vice Presidency become vacant.

Ford, was appointed by Nixon under the vacancy provisions of the 25th Amendment when Agnew resigned. [Ford has been the only American who served as both POTUS and VP and was not elected to either position.] Ford then nominated Gov. Nelson Rockefeller over the objections of his party.

Yeah, I think Obama is kinda ticked off that world peace hasn't broken out yet...and that freaking economy! When will people listen to him and do what they're told? What is the matter with Kansas, anyway?

"No one in the administration, no public employee, no military person, has any reason whatsoever to trust that their boss has their back. And as those things tend to go... it can only be reciprocated."

Bingo, Synova! Now add to that the same lack of loyalty that our leader has shown to the far left of his own party and to our allies, particularly England and Israel, and really, to his country on the international stage. So what do we have here?

No loyalty shown; no loyalty given. Where there WAS trust, at first a vacuum. Then all SORTS of things can happen. Motion, with no direction is followed by?

BJM: Jeez, get a life. Of course, in that circumstance, Biden would nominate a VP candidate, which would need a vote by both houses of Congress. However, it wouldn't happen overnight and my inference is that Pelosi is so power hungry that she might do whatever it takes to assume the office of Prez.

OBTW: Section 2 uses the word "Shall" rather than "permits," other than that, you fail to understand anything at all. But, then it might be very late in the day for you.

"I'm starting to think that Obama's is the first Hipster Presidency. "

see this is what i don't understand... hipsters live their lives as a cynical pose. everything they consume and think about is selected to fit that pose. any notion of positive emotion, of sincerity, of beauty, of earnestness has to be milled into dust on their nihilistic grindstone before theyll even think of snorting it. so how could they possibly like barack obama, a man composed entirely of the most nausea inducing platitudes ( i mean hope? huh?) and banalities...

wait. i think i get it! its obamas insincerity, his naked fakery, his disdain for america and americans barely hidden by a veneer of stage managed hopey horseshit, his mind numbing blankness that they identify with... he is the perfect hipster icon!! the greatest poser ever. I get it!

Yes, Bush (43) and Obama did/do have comparable numbers of czars, but Bush's count is over 8 years, instead of 8 months, which brings down the count of simultaneous czars to somewhere around 1/2 to 2/3 of that of Obama.

Still not that good, esp. compared to Reagan who had exactly one of them (Drug Czar).

Interestingly, the only other President with a lot of "czars" was FDR (and, of course, they didn't call them that back then for obvious reasons). Some of his were a result of screwing up the economy so badly, but a lot of them had to do with fighting a world war.

I've watched Nancy Pelosi successfully maneuver through Bay Area politics for the past twenty years; but her dismissive style and phony dramatics have tarnished her media star power. IMHO, her grip on the reins of power is slipping not strengthening as she's failed to successfully whip the Blue Dogs to heel on health care.

The Dem old boys club dispatched Madam Cankles and Saturday Night Bill without a backwards glance. The question is when, not if, they will toss Pelosi under the Obama Express.

The best thing that can happen for Obama is that the republicans capture congress. He can blame not passing anything on the republicans and anything good he can take the credit for. Like Clinton.

Hillary is done for. She has made a fool of herself at state by being mouth piece for Obama. She really is a stupid person, how could she have left the senate where she could have made herself in to a real power and instead allowed herself to be made trivial by Obama.

As for the Kommunist Klowns BHO has appointed or sought to nominate, it probably points out his sheer incompetence and hubris. A scarier thought is that these people are the best ones the democrats could get to accept the positions.

Awful as he is, it would worst for the country overall if he resigned in terms of race relations and dear God please don't let him be killed. That would be truly awful for the country in terms race relationships and polarization. Besides as a father it would awful to see his kids suffer that that. Although I loath his ideology I and I am sure most Americans (including those who detest his policies and political ideology) don't hate him personally and would have no problem having him as a neighbor.

Then slo-joe will be the president, and almost certainly Nancy (dumber than a box of joes) will become the vice.....which would not bode well for Joe's tenure. He might suffer a serious illness or disability.

"Hillary is done for. She has made a fool of herself at state by being mouth piece for Obama. She really is a stupid person, how could she have left the senate where she could have made herself in to a real power and instead allowed herself to be made trivial by Obama."

Not necessarily. If Obama continues his downward spiral (and nothing on the horizon would indicate otherwise), when Hillary resigns as SOS letting it leak out that it was due to O's incompetence on foreign policy, she weakens Obama and gains renewed strength for a 2012 run against Obama.